Justia Wyoming Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At issue was whether this case presented a justiciable issue when the Supreme Court could not render a decision binding on a federal agency and could only offer an advisory opinion that may or may not ultimately bind the parties.Berenergy Corporation, which produced oil from several sites under oil and gas leases granted by the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), sought a declaratory judgment that the terms of its BLM oil leases provided it with rights superior to any obtained by Peabody Energy Corporation through its coal leases. The district court granted in part and denied in part both parties’ motions for summary judgment. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings before the district court, holding (1) Congress intended that the issues raised by Berenergy be decided by the Secretary of the Interior or its BLM designees; (2) there was no express consent by the federal government for the Secretary or the BLM to be made a party to suits such as this for the purpose of informing a congressionally approved decision by the district court; but (3) the court nonetheless remands this case for an evaluation of whether a federal agency may participate in this suit. View "Berenergy Corp. v. BTU Western Resources, Inc." on Justia Law

Steven McLaren challenged his convictions for five felonies stemming from a bizarre and violent encounter with his girlfriend in 2014. McLaren owned 57 cats. He and his girlfriend, Jennifer Evans, referred to the cats as their “kids” or “the kid.” In March 2014, one of Mr. McLaren’s exotic Savannah kittens, Cameo, was sick, so he and Evans took it to a veterinary clinic for treatment. McLaren testified that he had injected “somewhere between a quarter and a third of a gram” of methamphetamine right before he noticed Cameo was ill, had not slept for days, and had been experiencing hallucinations since the night before. He was under the impression that Evans was attempting to harm or kill the kitten. After taking the kitten to the vet, McLaren and Evans drove around for a time. Though nothing seemed out of the ordinary at that time, McLaren came to a complete stop in the southbound lane in front of an oncoming Pepsi truck. Evans attempted to get out of the truck, but he pulled her by her hair back into the truck and locked the doors, telling her that her “kids deserved a better mother” and that she “was going to die today.” The Pepsi truck swerved around them, and McLaren turned off Highway 191, onto Wild Horse Loop. As he drove down Wild Horse Loop, Evans fought with McLaren and continued to attempt to get out, kicking the truck into park several times. McLaren also continued to hit and punch Evans; he grabbed her throat and forced her to the floorboard of the truck. At some point, McLaren opened the passenger door and Evans fell. She testified that McLaren stood over her, pulled her head to the left and the right, “trying to rip my head off,” and then let go. As soon as McLaren released her, Evans got up and ran toward Highway 191, where a truck stopped to assist her. When Evans arrived at the emergency room, she had two lacerations on her head and numerous bruises. Appealing his felonies, McLaren argued the trial court violated his due process rights when it failed to order a third competency evaluation and when it allowed defense counsel to assert a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness (NGMI) against his will. He also argued the jury instructions contained structural error because they did not require the State to prove he did not act in a sudden heat of passion to establish attempted second-degree murder and that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied defense counsel’s motion for mistrial after McLaren’s outburst during trial. The Wyoming Supreme Court concluded that, while the trial court did not improperly fail to order a competency hearing, it violated McLaren’s due process rights when, in spite of McLaren’s numerous declarations that he did not wish to proceed with the NGMI plea, it allowed defense counsel to assert the plea at trial. View "McLaren v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

A jury convicted appellant Donald Dean Foltz, Jr. of first-degree murder and the district court sentenced him to life without the possibility of parole. Foltz was accused of child abuse towards his girlfriend’s two-year-old son. Foltz appealed his conviction, arguing the district court erred when it denied his motion for judgment of acquittal because he contended the evidence was insufficient to support the charged against him. After review of the trial court record, the Wyoming Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed Foltz’s conviction. View "Foltz, Jr. v. Wyoming" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s conviction, rendered after a jury trial, for forgery, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction under the specific subparagraph of the forgery statute that Appellant was charged with violating.On appeal, Appellant argued that, to be convicted of forgery under subparagraph (ii) of the forgery statute, the “transfer” must cause the “writing” to “purport to be the act of another” and that the State never established the causal connection in this case. The Supreme Court remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of acquittal, holding (1) in the statutory phrase “transfers any writing so that it purports to be the act of another, the transfer must cause the writing to purport to be the act of another; and (2) applying this interpretation to the facts of this case, the evidence presented by the State was insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction. View "Riddle v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court requiring Wife to return certain personal property Husband after the divorce decree’s ninety-day deadline.On appeal, Wife argued that, by allowing Husband to recover property after the divorce decree’s ninety-day deadline, the district court improperly modified the parties’ property settlement without the required written agreement. The settlement declared that no modification or waiver of the terms of the agreement shall be valid unless in writing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not modify the parties’ agreement, but rather, the parties modified the agreement on their own, and the district court approved the modification. View "Acton v. Acton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court consolidated Plaintiffs’ petitions for writ of review from the circuit court’s decisions granting Defendant summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ separate claims asserting invasion of privacy, granted the petitions, and reversed and remanded for further proceedings.In granting summary judgment for Defendant, the circuit court concluded that Wyoming does not recognize a cause of action for Plaintiffs’ privacy claims. Plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to recognize a common law cause of action for the invasion of privacy tort defined by the Restatement (Second) of Torts, section 652B, as intrusion upon seclusion. The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiffs, holding (1) the Restatement cause of action for intrusion upon seclusion is consistent with the value the state places on privacy; and (2) therefore, the tort is now recognized as part of Wyoming’s common law. View "Howard v. Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant, after a jury trial, of one count of immodest, immoral or indecent liberties with a minor and three counts of second-degree sexual abuse of a minor. Defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the indecent liberties charge was duplicitous in that it alleged a single charge based on a course of conduct occurring during a twenty-eight month period. The Supreme Court held (1) Defendant waived any duplicity defects by failing to object; and (2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a single question asked by the prosecution, while potentially in violation of a pretrial order requiring notice to the trial court before inquiring into a specific area of facts, did not prejudice Defendant. View "Triplett v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant’s declaratory judgment action for lack of a justiciable controversy.Appellant’s driver’s license was suspended after her agreed to take a breath test and provided a breath sample indicating his blood alcohol concentration to be over the legal limit. Appellant initiated a civil action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Wyoming Constitution prohibits a law enforcement officer from using the “deemed consent” provision of Wyo. Stat. Ann. 31-6-102(a)(i) to perform a warrantless chemical test incident to the lawful arrest of a motorist. The district court concluded that the request did not present a justiciable controversy and granted the Wyoming Department of Transportation’s motion to dismiss the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly dismissed the claim because Appellant failed to present a justiciable controversy. View "Leavitt v. State, ex rel. Wyoming Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court summarily affirmed the district court’s order recognizing and adopting the settlement Richard Hodson reached with Janet Sturgeon. In the settlement, the parties agreed to resolve their pending lawsuit and to divide their jointly owned property. Hodson challenged the district court’s order adopting the settlement through this pro se appeal, apparently arguing that the district court erred in refusing to enforce an agreement that allegedly existed before he filed his lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that Hodson failed to comply with the court’s rules of appellate procedure, and therefore, summarily affirmed the district court’s order. The court also granted Sturgeon’s request for an award of costs and attorney fees. View "Hodson v. Sturgeon" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court entering summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this complaint filed by Plaintiffs asserting a claim for adverse possession based on Plaintiffs’ fencing and grazing of livestock on a strip of Defendants’ property. The Supreme Court held (1) genuine issues of material fact existed with respect to Plaintiffs’ prima facie adverse possession claim, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on this claim; and (2) the district court erred in granting Defendants summary judgment on their claim that Plaintiffs’ use of the disputed property was permissive. View "White v. Wheeler" on Justia Law